The Bangalore Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) held that once the department has accepted the capital gain offered by the seller upon transfer of its business, then said transaction cannot be doubted in the hands of purchaser.
DN Solutions (India) Private Limited, the assessee company, engaged in the business of trading in parts and spares used in machine tools and other business support service activities, filed its return declaring an income of Rs.18,58,390/-. During assessment, the Assessing Officer ( AO ) made addition of Rs.1,20,46,911/- i.e disallowance of depreciation on goodwill on the ground that there was no valuation report on the date of transfer of the business. The AO also referred to the business transfer agreement and held that there was no mention of any goodwill in that agreement.
The AO not established that the main purpose of transfer of such asset was reduction of liability to income tax by claiming extra depreciation on enhanced cost. Hence, the ITAT allowed the depreciation on goodwill claimed by assessee company upon acquisition of business of another entity.
Referring to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. SIMS securities, the two member Bench of Chandra Poojari (Accountant Member) and Prakash Chandra Yadav (Judicial Member) reiterated that “excess amount paid over and above to the net asset value would be treated as goodwill”.
It was found that the assessee has taken over the business of DICEIPL vide transfer agreement, since DICEIPL was rendering such services which are akin to the assessee’s business hence in the interest of business the assessee. The purchase consideration was determined on the basis of valuation report based on discounted cash flow method (DCF), and excess amount over and above the net asset value of the business was paid for the goodwill.
Therefore, the ITAT Bench observed that the AO has basically gone by the presumption that the share holding pattern of the assessee company and of the seller company DICEIPL is same, which is factually incorrect.
The Bench disregarded the opinion of the Income Tax Assessing Officer that there was no intangible asset transferred to the assessee by the seller company, since the excess amount offered by the recipient company as short-term capital gain was accepted by the Revenue itself. The Appellate Tribunal of Income Tax allowed assessee’s appeal and concluded that Income Tax Authorities are not correct in disallowing the claim of assessee on depreciation
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
